"definitive Conclusion By Logic"

[Snow]

Originally posted by antishock82003@Jan 29 2004, 11:05 AM

If you bother to actually skim over the pages that are linked it'll soon dawn on you the magnitude of JS's plagiarism. If you want to know how a "simple farm boy" could possbily write the BoM, it's not too hard to imagine that with Spaulding's basis for a story, JS's plagiarism of the Bible, and repition..he could've wrote it.

You know Nibley's Book of Mormon challenge and his argument of complexity?

Does anyone know the whole story of how the critic figured JS must have conspired to write the BOM by borrowing from this source for the main plot lines, and from that source for some detail work and from Shakespeare and then from the Apocrypha and then from this author and that poet and etc and etc...

It is almost more impressive to think that he could weave in all the source needed to pull off the fraud and make them all work, and do it under the very noses of one dozen witnesses to the process without them suspecting a thing.

Or were all 12 of them in on it too?..... cue the music, drop the lights, get a copy of the McGruder film...

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by Snow+Jan 29 2004, 10:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Jan 29 2004, 10:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--antishock82003@Jan 29 2004, 11:05 AM

If you bother to actually skim over the pages that are linked it'll soon dawn on you the magnitude of JS's plagiarism.  If you want to know how a "simple farm boy" could possbily write the BoM, it's not too hard to imagine that with Spaulding's basis for a story, JS's plagiarism of the Bible, and repition..he could've wrote it.

You know Nibley's Book of Mormon challenge and his argument of complexity?

Does anyone know the whole story of how the critic figured JS must have conspired to write the BOM by borrowing from this source for the main plot lines, and from that source for some detail work and from Shakespeare and then from the Apocrypha and then from this author and that poet and etc and etc...

It is almost more impressive to think that he could weave in all the source needed to pull off the fraud and make them all work, and do it under the very noses of one dozen witnesses to the process without them suspecting a thing.

Or were all 12 of them in on it too?..... cue the music, drop the lights, get a copy of the McGruder film...

He put his face in a hat that had his magic rocks in it to "translate" tumbaga plates that weren't even in the room, and nobody suspected that he was making things up. Those are some smart witnesses. I'd trust anything that any of them said because I have faith.

Therefore the church is true.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by bat+Jan 29 2004, 11:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bat @ Jan 29 2004, 11:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@Jan 29 2004, 10:50 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--antishock82003@Jan 29 2004, 11:05 AM

If you bother to actually skim over the pages that are linked it'll soon dawn on you the magnitude of JS's plagiarism.  If you want to know how a "simple farm boy" could possbily write the BoM, it's not too hard to imagine that with Spaulding's basis for a story, JS's plagiarism of the Bible, and repition..he could've wrote it.

You know Nibley's Book of Mormon challenge and his argument of complexity?

Does anyone know the whole story of how the critic figured JS must have conspired to write the BOM by borrowing from this source for the main plot lines, and from that source for some detail work and from Shakespeare and then from the Apocrypha and then from this author and that poet and etc and etc...

It is almost more impressive to think that he could weave in all the source needed to pull off the fraud and make them all work, and do it under the very noses of one dozen witnesses to the process without them suspecting a thing.

Or were all 12 of them in on it too?..... cue the music, drop the lights, get a copy of the McGruder film...

He put his face in a hat that had his magic rocks in it to "translate" tumbaga plates that weren't even in the room, and nobody suspected that he was making things up. Those are some smart witnesses. I'd trust anything that any of them said because I have faith.

Therefore the church is true.

I would think that if it bothers you that much...dismiss it and move forward...

Personally, I know JS didn't write the BofM...He was given the book by revelation ...from Gold plates.

nuf said.

[Guest antishock82003]

1) Who's to say that the "witnesses" weren't part of the process?

2) Peace, JS didn't have any GOLD plates. Just ask FARMS.

3) JS didn't translate from the GOLD plates, he put his face into his hat, looked at his "seer" stones, and proceeded with the story. At least that's his story....

4) Snow. Do you believe the Church's assertion that JS produced the BoM in so short a time?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Cal@Jan 29 2004, 10:10 PM

Repitition, IMHO, is not as big a problem as repetition of things that were mistranslations in the first place, AND quotations of scripture (Isaiah) that hadn't been written yet!

Not all the "experts" agree that Isaiah was written at two different times. The more recent "experts" are the ones suggesting that it was all one Isaiah.

[Guest antishock82003]

BTW, never said repitition is plagiarism. Just said that JS and OC used lots of it grammatically and thematically in order to produce the BoM.

[Guest antishock82003]

Getting back to the original topic, it seems to me that if God had intended the Book of Mormon to be accepted based on logic, he would have organized things so as to make the logical case a lot less ambiguous.

Isn't being "Another TESTAMENT of Jesus Christ" place the BoM de facto in the logic camp? Isn't it supposed to be EVIDENCE of the existence of Jesus Christ; hence the use of the word "testament"?

I think that's why religionists start to get confused. Their "testaments" are supposed to be evidentiary in nature, but they're not. It's a misnomer, IMO, to call something that it's not. Religionists take valid terms and definitions, apply them to their various credos to lend credibility to their beliefs, but in the end it's a disservice to them because they can't distinguish between reality and faith.

No missing steel, horses, battle sites, Hebrew language traces, Semitic DNA; no suspicious parallels with 19th-century Protestantism, anti-Masonry, the Comoros Islands (capital: Moroni), Thomas Paine, King James Version anachronisms, etc. That's not to say that these things disprove the Book of Mormon, but it's hard to dismiss them entirely and say they don't at least provide one plausible alternative explanation for the Book of Mormon's origin.

This is where Mormons lose me. I can understand ignoring one or two issues, because the hope that bones will be discovered or artifacts will be unearthed is something understandable. But when you start to include genetics, anachronisms, plagiarisms, so on and so forth I just don't understand how the Mormon can continue to believe in something so genuinely not mystical. It's very obvious, once one sees all the evidence against the veracity of the claims that the BoM makes, that the BoM isn't produced by ancients and kept by angels. New Yorkers produced it in the 19th century.

If my "testimony" was so weak that it could not withstand so obvious an imitation of divine revelation, then so be it. Actually, thank god. I could not imagine making similar decisions with analogous information in other areas of my life. It was, and would be disastrous.

Maybe the language patterns and wordprint studies FARMS touts outweigh these things in the balance. (I'll leave aside questioning whether it would be fair to make a person's eternal destiny contingent upon his evaluation of evidence that it takes an advanced degree in ancient languages and history to evaluate.) But it seems to me that, at best, the rational evidence for and against the Book of Mormon is evenly balanced.

Could you please list the rational evidence for the BoM? In all seriousness, I would like to see it, examine it, and think about it. I want to see if the rational evidence for the BoM is as compelling as is the "anti" evidence. Thus far, anything I've read from FARMs or other apologists is simply obfuscation of "anti" material. So. Yes. I'm interested in your assertion. Sincerely.

If it were God's intention that the Book of Mormon should be accepted based on logic (which seems to be the point President Faust is making), why make it such a close call? When I'm trying to convince someone by logic, I try to make my arguments as convincing as possible. (I just got a nice partner-inflicted derriere-chewing today for having evidently failed to do so in a particular instance. Maybe I'm spending too much of my logical energy at LDSTalk ...) I certainly don't blame someone (let alone consign him to the nether regions for much teeth-gnashing and similar unpleasantness) if he decides against me when my case is weaker or equal to the opposing argument. Even if my argument is slightly stronger, I have to expect that a certain number of people will misunderstand or misjudge the evidence, as I will occasionally do myself, being fallible. I only have the right to be annoyed at someone for failing to accept my logic when the balance of evidence isn't even close -- i.e. when it's Alexander Hamilton on one side and Michael Moore on the other.

Whatever you do Proud Duck. Do not accept a calling to be a Sunday school teacher. You'll be disfellowshipped.

In short, if God expects the Book of Mormon to be accepted because it's logical to do so, then God must be understood as indifferent to the inevitability that vast numbers of people will give it their best shot and make the wrong call. Alternatively, I could pretend that the rational evidence really is as one-sided as some people would have it -- but then I have to conclude that the non-Mormons who've read the Book of Mormon (some of whom I know personally) are either stupid or stubborn for not accepting something so obvious. The ones I know are not.

I think this is the point where the Duck would get a testimonkey from your average Joe Mormon. Feeeeeelings...nothing but, feeeeeeeelings. That's what you get in the end, when all EVIDENCE is examined...a testimonkey. Because you ain't gonna get a valid testimony, that's for sure.

So back to the bottom line: The Book of Mormon is to be accepted based on faith. The purpose of rational apologetics (if any) is to try to keep the evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon close enough to parity with the evidence against it so that Mormon faith doesn't become completely divorced from reality, forcing Mormons to write off rationalism entirely, after the manner of the young-earth creationists. And defenders of the Church, including some leaders, might consider the implications of what they're saying, and stop trying to steady the ark by proclaiming logical certainty when it isn't there.

In other words, well, Dallin H. Oaks words (according the to apostate Steve Benson) "the purpose of FARMs is to protect the Church's flank." I honestly think that the reason why those paid apologists exist is to protect the Church's financial base, the American tithe payer (that's you Duck, with your kick@** lawyerly subsidy), from doubt, and possibly attrition. The BoM has been proven to be irrational. There's just no way around it. The question is, will the Irrational ever allow themselves to become Rational? Or is it too unsettling?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

(that's you Duck, with your kick@** lawyerly subsidy)

I wish. "Kick@**" my @**. Maybe a mild Indian burn (Lamanite burn?) or a weak kick in the shins. Anyone know a Latham or O'Melveny partner who wants to rescue a talented young duck associate from a middling firm of exceeding stinginess? I'm saddled with 3 grand a month between housing and student debt alone. I'm dyin' here.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by antishock82003@Jan 30 2004, 06:07 AM

BTW, never said repitition is plagiarism. Just said that JS and OC used lots of it grammatically and thematically in order to produce the BoM.

Well, it is still the work of the Lord....He can use all things for the good of those who love Him.

[Ray]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Jan 29 2004, 09:39 PM

Getting back to the original topic, it seems to me that if God had intended the Book of Mormon to be accepted based on logic, he would have organized things so as to make the logical case a lot less ambiguous.

No missing steel, horses, battle sites, Hebrew language traces, Semitic DNA; no suspicious parallels with 19th-century Protestantism, anti-Masonry, the Comoros Islands (capital: Moroni), Thomas Paine, King James Version anachronisms, etc.  That's not to say that these things disprove the Book of Mormon, but it's hard to dismiss them entirely and say they don't at least provide one plausible alternative explanation for the Book of Mormon's origin.

Maybe the language patterns and wordprint studies FARMS touts outweigh these things in the balance.  (I'll leave aside questioning whether it would be fair to make a person's eternal destiny contingent upon his evaluation of evidence that it takes an advanced degree in ancient languages and history to evaluate.)  But it seems to me that, at best, the rational evidence for and against the Book of Mormon is evenly balanced. 

If it were God's intention that the Book of Mormon should be accepted based on logic (which seems to be the point President Faust is making), why make it such a close call?  When I'm trying to convince someone by logic, I try to make my arguments as convincing as possible.  (I just got a nice partner-inflicted derriere-chewing today for having evidently failed to do so in a particular instance.  Maybe I'm spending too much of my logical energy at LDSTalk ...)  I certainly don't blame someone (let alone consign him to the nether regions for much teeth-gnashing and similar unpleasantness) if he decides against me when my case is weaker or equal to the opposing argument.  Even if my argument is slightly stronger, I have to expect that a certain number of people will misunderstand or misjudge the evidence, as I will occasionally do myself, being fallible. I only have the right to be annoyed at someone for failing to accept my logic when the balance of evidence isn't even close -- i.e. when it's Alexander Hamilton on one side and Michael Moore on the other.

In short, if God expects the Book of Mormon to be accepted because it's logical to do so, then God must be understood as indifferent to the inevitability that vast numbers of people will give it their best shot and make the wrong call.  Alternatively, I could pretend that the rational evidence really is as one-sided as some people would have it -- but then I have to conclude that the non-Mormons who've read the Book of Mormon (some of whom I know personally) are either stupid or stubborn for not accepting something so obvious.  The ones I know are not.

So back to the bottom line:  The Book of Mormon is to be accepted based on faith.  The purpose of rational apologetics (if any) is to try to keep the evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon close enough to parity with the evidence against it so that Mormon faith doesn't become completely divorced from reality, forcing Mormons to write off rationalism entirely, after the manner of the young-earth creationists.  And defenders of the Church, including some leaders, might consider the implications of what they're saying, and stop trying to steady the ark by proclaiming logical certainty when it isn't there.

“Cursed is he who puts his trust in the arm of flesh” is the thought that came to my mind when thinking on how to respond to this post. When trying to know and understand God, a person should get to know God personally, don’t you think? Give me one good logical reason why I should trust anything that someone tells me about God, without first seeking a confirmation from God to tell me that what that person is telling me is true.

Logical physical evidence that supposedly proves that something is of God is in the same boat as everything else. Is the evidence being understood correctly, and if so, how shall I know it? If some people found some physical evidence to suggest that the American continents were inhabited by people who came from Israel, and some of their teachings were also in a book known as the Book of Mormon, how would I know that the physical evidence was authentic and being interpreted correctly? Am I to rely upon the testimony of people who supposedly know how to interpret and verify evidence? If someone makes his livelihood by interpreting and verifying evidence, or if someone may gain some advantage over me by my reliance on his assessments, how do I know that he will be fair and accurate in his assessments? How do I know whether or not that person has integrity? By what his peers say about him? Couldn’t his peers be biased or susceptible to his influence, even through ignorance? To believe what someone says just because they say it, and have some kind of physical evidence to support it, sounds illogical to me. That may help to get the ball rolling, but I still would not know for sure that what that person has told me is true.

Logic dictates that to get to know God, I must get to know Him personally. My knowledge of Him may still be tainted by my inability to perceive Him fairly and accurately, but by being personally responsible and accountable for my own decisions and actions in regards to the information available to me, at least I am the one in control of my understanding. The more I know about Him and the things He understands, the better I accurately know and understand Him. Isn’t that logical?

I testify that I have God’s assurance that many things I know and understand about Him are true, and that God has given me this assurance through the spirit of prophecy. If the whole world were to testify about things contrary to what I know about God, I would still bear my testimony just as it is, come hell or high water. I thank God that I do not live in a world where people kill other people for their beliefs, and I thank God for inspiring people in the world to help them come to know Him. I do not believe the things that I know about God because I put trust in the testimony of those people, but by being able to listen and read the information that I have from them, and asking God if the information is true, I now know for myself that I know the truth.

[Snow]

Originally posted by antishock82003@Jan 30 2004, 04:57 AM

1) Who's to say that the "witnesses" weren't part of the process?

4) Snow.  Do you believe the Church's assertion that JS produced the BoM in so short a time?

1)Who's to say that George Bush is not actually a predatory alien sent here from the Talos 9 galactic sytem to feed off the brains of democrats?

Burden of proof my boy, burden of proof, or at least if you know something you're not telling, then please share.

2)Granted, I don't pay attention in Church but I have never heard the Church assert any one thing or another about the timeframe. They probably have, I just haven't heard it.

On the other hand, I have read the acknowledged authorities on the topic and read their footnotes and references. The record is clear on the general timeline. Again, do you know something your not sharing?

I still say your bluffing.

[Guest antishock82003]

Oh no, definitely not bluffing....just deciding if I want to take the time to drudge up all the anti-references. Then of course you'll drudge up all the Internet Mormon Apologist references with a smattering of character assasination. Then it'll be a tit for tat back and forth exchange on the minutia...eventually the thread loses its focus, or we become distracted (either on purpose or not).

Usually one of two things happen. Either you get nailed down on something and then admit to resorting to faith to separate out the difficult issues. Or, our references are usually susceptible to a certain amount of skepticism and scrutiny...which brings you back to the aforementioned option.

I say let's just skip to the end:

Logically speaking I think I'm right. Faithfully speaking you feel that you're right. We disagree.

[Snow]

Okay, if that's your deal then. I think your way off base - in terms of what you think you would be able to show. There were a total of 12 witnesses to the BoM translation. Details are sparse but from those who witnessed it, you can piece together what the only ones who know had to say about it. You can check it out on Packman's site. Someone, a critic, not a tbm, did his best to piece together what we know. He didn't get it all in and he may or may not be completely right on the details but it matches fairly closely what I know. And by the way, what I know of it doesn't come from FARMS or FAIR.

I'm all but positive that you would not be able to come of with an actual witness to anything that materially disputes the essentials of the those closest to the process. You talk about me and obfuscation, but your task would be to create a convoluted anti-apologetic creative enough to sliver in some doubt to the credibility of the first hand guys. Your argument would undoubtedly rely heavily on some type of serious conspiracy theory, perhaps on the scale of the vast right wingers out to get Bill. but we both know there is no actual evidence to a conspiracy, only a lot of imagination and assignation of motives.

In short, you would have to do exactly what you accuse apologist of doing - fabricating some eloborate plausibility exercise to explain away the lack of evidence to support your case.

But hey, if you call that logic...

[Guest antishock82003]

Originally posted by Snow@Jan 31 2004, 01:11 AM

Okay, if that's your deal then. I think your way off base - in terms of what you think you would be able to show. There were a total of 12 witnesses to the BoM translation. Details are sparse but from those who witnessed it, you can piece together what the only ones who know had to say about it. You can check it out on Packman's site. Someone, a critic, not a tbm, did his best to piece together what we know. He didn't get it all in and he may or may not be completely right on the details but it matches fairly closely what I know. And by the way, what I know of it doesn't come from FARMS or FAIR.

I'm all but positive that you would not be able to come of with an actual witness to anything that materially disputes the essentials of the those closest to the process. You talk about me and obfuscation, but your task would be to create a convoluted anti-apologetic creative enough to sliver in some doubt to the credibility of the first hand guys. Your argument would undoubtedly rely heavily on some type of serious conspiracy theory, perhaps on the scale of the vast right wingers out to get Bill. but we both know there is no actual evidence to a conspiracy, only a lot of imagination and assignation of motives.

In short, you would have to do exactly what you accuse apologist of doing - fabricating some eloborate plausibility exercise to explain away the lack of evidence to support your case.

But hey, if you call that logic...

Nope. I would just use quotes by the witnesses themselves. I guess the source for those quotes would come under debate, though. Of course, all you need is some small sliver of slippery ambiguity to keep your plausibility arguments alive and well...

Besides, I know you want to believe that the close friends, and family members of JS were unbiased fair minded impartial witnesses. Gold plates. Given by an angel. Ok. Believe. It's cool.

[Snow]

Well AS,

You've spent a lot of time talking about making your case and if you were to make your case, how you would go about it and how I would respond and and so on and so on. You could have just made your case by now.

To me, its a lot of time telling about something you would do if you wanted to spend as much effort doing it and you are spending telling us about how much time it would take to spend doing it.

On another note. I was just out driving by St. Bonaventures and two ducks from the park by my house were waddling in the middle of the street, oblivious to all the traffic. Everytime the duck in front would pause, the duck behind would saddle up, so to speak. Feel free to insert your ProudDuck or Catholic jokes here.....

[Cal]

Ray,

YOu said" "“Cursed is he who puts his trust in the arm of flesh” is the thought that came to my mind when thinking on how to respond to this post."

What exactly is this "arm of the flesh" you are talking about? I assume it is other people. If so, how did YOU find out about the BoM? Was not JS "people"? Even if you respond "NO, I'm trusting my own FEELINGS".

I have news for you; you are still trusting "flesh"---it's the flesh that your own brain is made out of. You are still trusting that your own brain is telling you something about something REAL , and not actually deceiving you by coloring your rational mind with emotion.

It's ALL flesh; like it or not.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Snow@Jan 31 2004, 12:19 PM

On another note. I was just out driving by St. Bonaventures and two ducks from the park by my house were waddling in the middle of the street, oblivious to all the traffic. Everytime the duck in front would pause, the duck behind would saddle up, so to speak. Feel free to insert your ProudDuck or Catholic jokes here.....

Really Snow!

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Cal@Jan 31 2004, 10:09 PM

Ray,

YOu said" "“Cursed is he who puts his trust in the arm of flesh” is the thought that came to my mind when thinking on how to respond to this post."

What exactly is this "arm of the flesh" you are talking about? I assume it is other people. If so, how did YOU find out about the BoM? Was not JS "people"? Even if you respond "NO, I'm trusting my own FEELINGS".

I have news for you; you are still trusting "flesh"---it's the flesh that your own brain is made out of. You are still trusting that your own brain is telling you something about something REAL , and not actually deceiving you by coloring your rational mind with emotion.

It's ALL flesh; like it or not.

The delivering of a book is the arm of flesh...therefore you are not only given the book, but Moroni's promise/test to know it came from God through this man.

There is the arm of flesh that feeds you face....but the arm of flesh we are asked not to trust is the arm which states they know what you should do, without a confirmation from God.

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by Peace@Jan 29 2004, 10:23 PM

Not written yet....LOL All things are present with God. Future, past, present...all the same thing with God...

As well as the fact that scripture/messages from God to men are timeless....He can give writings to men from the future...if He can create worlds without end....

Your problem comes from trying to limit or eliminate God and His omnipotence.

That's right, god can do ANYTHING! Anything at all! Logic and reason play no part in the workings of god. So, puny humans can only come to a religious "knowledge" based solely on faith and faith alone. I mean, if god can make the Sun stand still, flood the entire world AND save all the animals, dead folks come back to life, turn water into wine (or was that only grape juice , unfermented?) etc. etc. then god could surely inspire a humble uneducated farm boy to "translate" the Golden Plates. It's a no-brainer! God can do it ALL! Just have faith and BELIEVE!!!!!!!!

[Guest bizabra]

RAY: "I thank God that I do not live in a world where people kill other people for their beliefs....."

BIZ: Um, what world do YOU live on, Ray? here on Planet Earth, where I live, people often kill others for their beliefs. What Planet do you inhabit, pray tell?

[Cal]

Originally posted by Peace+Feb 1 2004, 11:19 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peace @ Feb 1 2004, 11:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Jan 31 2004, 10:09 PM

Ray,

YOu said" "“Cursed is he who puts his trust in the arm of flesh” is the thought that came to my mind when thinking on how to respond to this post."

What exactly is this "arm of the flesh" you are talking about? I assume it is other people. If so, how did YOU find out about the BoM? Was not JS "people"? Even if you respond "NO, I'm trusting my own FEELINGS".

I have news for you; you are still trusting "flesh"---it's the flesh that your own brain is made out of. You are still trusting that your own brain is telling you something about something REAL , and not actually deceiving you by coloring your rational mind with emotion.

It's ALL flesh; like it or not.

The delivering of a book is the arm of flesh...therefore you are not only given the book, but Moroni's promise/test to know it came from God through this man.

There is the arm of flesh that feeds you face....but the arm of flesh we are asked not to trust is the arm which states they know what you should do, without a confirmation from God.

Peace---You missed my point, again! I'll try one more time.

Here goes---how do you know that it is God talking to you? You trust in your BRAIN, right? What is it made out of? Look under a microscope and see.

[Guest Starsky]

Well your brain may be an arm, but mine is way more than just thinking, dreaming, and sensory perception.

They have also found that your heart has it's own brain....

So if you want to wressle words, instead of being able to see beyond the physical realm...that is perfectly fine with me...

But don't ask me to get caught up in your loss of understanding which is beyond the physical.

When you take someone's words...you MUST TAKE THEM AS THEY ARE MEANT.

Your problems is that You want it out of the speakers context into your own....

Well...if that is what you do with everything you read or hear...you will always be lost.

It would be like someone in Paris being given instructions as to how to get to the nearest store....in Paris...and you take it out of context for your own little city in the states.

The Parisian will say.....walk two blocks south, then turn left and voila!

Well if an Idahoian living in the center of a potatoe field was given this instruction without the qualifying 'context' of being in Paris...he would probably still be in a potatoe field two blocks south and turning left.

You have to learn to 'see' correctly. Understand correctly, apply correctly, etc.

[Cal]

Wow Peace---The heart has a brain? Is there a medical specialty that specializes in this particular organ? What is it called, Cardiac Neurology? If I remember from Anatomy studies, the only nerve tissue in the heart functions to make a pump work. Maybe your pump isn't getting enough blood to your brain anymore.

Actually, your mistaken idea the the heart has anything to do with thinking or emotion is a throw back to more primitive times when people actually thought that the heart was an organ of thinking. The brain was thought to function as a radiator to cool the blood. Science has found differently since then. But, since science seems to mean nothing to you, I guess you will just have to remain stuck in the 1600's.

[Guest Starsky]

Wow Peace---The heart has a brain? Is there a medical specialty that specializes in this particular organ? What is it called, Cardiac Neurology? If I remember from Anatomy studies, the only nerve tissue in the heart functions to make a pump work. Maybe your pump isn't getting enough blood to your brain anymore.

Actually, your mistaken idea the the heart has anything to do with thinking or emotion is a throw back to more primitive times when people actually thought that the heart was an organ of thinking. The brain was thought to function as a radiator to cool the blood. Science has found differently since then. But, since science seems to mean nothing to you, I guess you will just have to remain stuck in the 1600's.

You are so retro...and left out in the dark. YOu think if you don't know...nobody can know it.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Peace@Feb 1 2004, 12:16 PM

Wow Peace---The heart has a brain? Is there a medical specialty that specializes in this particular organ? What is it called, Cardiac Neurology? If I remember from Anatomy studies, the only nerve tissue in the heart functions to make a pump work. Maybe your pump isn't getting enough blood to your brain anymore.

Actually, your mistaken idea the the heart has anything to do with thinking or emotion is a throw back to more primitive times when people actually thought that the heart was an organ of thinking. The brain was thought to function as a radiator to cool the blood. Science has found differently since then. But, since science seems to mean nothing to you, I guess you will just have to remain stuck in the 1600's.

You are so retro...and left out in the dark. YOu think if you don't know...nobody can know it.

Peace--yeah, me and the rest of the scientific community. Show me an X-ray of your Heart-Brain. Oh that's right, it has to be revealed by God. Silly me.